How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

efb

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In any event, best of luck of the 22nd. I'll be voting the same way as John Waters.

Did you enjoy typing that?

One eyed Jack

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Hats off to you, and those two points particularly resonate with me.

Building on that, if we were looking for another alternative, there's a case to be made for decoupling the concept of family from the concept of marriage.

If you think there is a case to be made, why aren't you making it then? Is it because you know it has nothing to do with the referendum but you're still making great efforts to muddy the waters?

Another issue that might actually have value for people is considering tenants rights. IIRC, the concept of a family home really just relates to homes that are owner occupied. We can sort of see that owner occupiers have pretty secure tenure, even if they've mortgage arrears. Renters don't have the same security.

You know, real issues that actually impact on people's lives in a noticeable way.

Another issue that has nothing to do with the referendum you mean? Yes, I'd like to talk to you about real issues that actually impact on people's lives in a noticeable way, but it seems you want to avoid discussion of issues that are actually relevant to this referendum, in favour of making all sorts of things out that are completely irrelevant to this referendum.

smash

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, irrelevant to you, but it's one of the matters that I've raised and received only deflections in response.

It's not just irrelevant to me, it's irrelevant to this referendum. The spin that it is relevant is a blatant lie from the no side. You are the one who is deflecting this point!

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not really a "marriage will be redefined" advocate. I'm more a "what does this actually mean, given that the gender-based language in Article 41 remains" kind of guy.

2 gender based references. Women should stay at home, and mothers shouldn't have to work.

Neither will change, neither will affect the outcome of the vote.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Bear in mind, I'm expecting that folk like you should be able to answer that question if you really understand the proposal you are advocating.

I have answered it. Others have answered it. You're blind to the truth.

Smiley92a

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yeah, can I point out that your exact statement is more typically made by Yes Voters, who apparently haven't seen any valid no arguments.

In any event, best of luck of the 22nd. I'll be voting the same way as John Waters.

Such as....? What do you think is the strongest argument the no side have presented so far? Which one has not been refuted to your satisfaction?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

efb wrote: »

Did you enjoy typing that?

Hell, yeah. Say "John Waters" is a positive context around here, and you know you've caused half a dozen coffee cups to empty over keyboards in shock.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you think there is a case to be made, why aren't you making it then? Is it because you know it has nothing to do with the referendum but you're still making great efforts to muddy the waters?

Erm, you must not be reading my posts, because I most certainly have been saying all along that this referendum is detracting from real issues that actually need to be addressed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Another issue that has nothing to do with the referendum you mean? Yes, I'd like to talk to you about real issues that actually impact on people's lives in a noticeable way, but it seems you want to avoid discussion of issues that are actually relevant to this referendum, in favour of making all sorts of things out that are completely irrelevant to this referendum.

Yes, and that's because (as I've patiently explained) I regard this referendum as an irrelevance. Do I need to put up where I'm coming from again again?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

• Any amendment to the Constitution creates uncertainty. For that reason, a proposal for change has to overcome a level of materiality before I'd back it. I'm afraid I just don't see that level of materiality here.
• If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.
• I don't like the Oireachtas getting an explicit power to regulate marriage. I'd want to know what the limits of this power will be (there don't seem to be any under the wording). No, I don't expect that a resurgent Catholic political force will re-criminalise contraception any time soon. I just see the right of married couples to access contraception under the Constitution as something that should not be disturbed. Ditto for the wider concept of marital privacy. Collectively, we needed it the past, and may need it in the future.
• I'd like to know the shape of any legislation planned following the amendment. I'd like to see it's consistency with the wording proposed; in particular, if there are areas where straight and gay marriages will need different treatment, or where measures applying to all marriages might need to change.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

smash wrote: »

It's not just irrelevant to me, it's irrelevant to this referendum. The spin that it is relevant is a blatant lie from the no side. You are the one who is deflecting this point!

You wish.

smash wrote: »

2 gender based references. Women should stay at home, and mothers shouldn't have to work.

Neither will change, neither will affect the outcome of the vote.

Erm, the issue is that they won't change, leaving conflicting concepts in the same Article.

smash wrote: »

I have answered it. Others have answered it. You're blind to the truth.

No, the 'answers' are just petulant denials without substance.

Smiley92a wrote: »

Such as....? What do you think is the strongest argument the no side have presented so far? Which one has not been refuted to your satisfaction?

Precisely how much time do you and the dozen others think I have to answer the same old dross again and again?

And, all the time, its the Yes side that have the onus to make a case. Not one of you is able to give a concrete reason, an actual real problem, that this referendum solves.

Not a NSA agent

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Precisely how much time do you and the dozen others think I have to answer the same old dross again and again?

Far too much. Although I would use the term answer very loosely.

One eyed Jack

gravehold wrote: »

Why not remove civil marraige and just have CP for all that way marriage can just be a religious thing for the straights

You'd still require a constitutional amendment to remove civil marriage from the constitution, and you'd still be left with the lack of protection in civil partnerships.

Religious marriage and Civil Marriage are not recognised by the same authority anyway - religious organizations don't recognise civil marriage, and the State doesn't recognise religious marriages. Solemnisers are given their authority by the State. Unless a person has been given the authority by the State to solemnise a marriage, the marriage is not recognised by the State.

Therefore your idea of marriage being solely a 'religious thing for the straights', could not be supported on at least two counts -

It takes no account of people of no religion who would want be married.

and if you go the other way -

It takes no account of people who are religious who's marriage would not be recognised by the State.

That's not even taking account of the fact that your suggestion is regressive rather than progressive, as it would call for a constitutional amendment to downgrade existing civil marriages, which would require a referendum to do so.

That would mean that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming referendum, we would have to have another one then to take marriage out of the constitution and bring civil partnership back into legislation. It would simply make no sense whatsoever.

smash

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You wish.

Yea ok... nice deflection.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, the issue is that they won't change, leaving conflicting concepts in the same Article.

What conflicting concepts? Explain it, go on... I can guess your reply but I'd love to see you try to write it without stopping to consider how it's complete bullshít.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, the 'answers' are just petulant denials without substance.

But I see the opposite. There's zero substance to your replies. Absolutely zero. You're making it up in your own head.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

smash wrote: »

What conflicting concepts? Explain it, go on... I can guess your reply but I'd love to see you try to write it without stopping to consider how it's complete bullshít.

But, sure, it's already posted. The more perceptive Yes posters accept there's incoherence in the wording.

smash wrote: »

But I see the opposite. There's zero substance to your replies. Absolutely zero. You're making it up in your own head.

Well, then you're ignoring some of the things said by other Yes voters.

Tbh, your outlook seems just too biased to actually take in what's being said.

KingBrian2

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Maybe there's no problem with marriage being redefined. But if it is, I'd really like to know. I'd like to know what I'm being asked to sign up for.

That's why I ask about the couple of features I can spot in the legal framework for marriage that just don't apply to SSM.

The yes side is not campaigning for the recognition of polygamy if that is what you mean, the yes simple want homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and entitlements as heterosexual couples.

smash

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Tbh, your outlook seems just too biased to actually take in what's being said.

But it's not. I've asked for just one valid reason to vote no. Just one reason to show how a yes vote will damage society in any way or damage marriage in any way. So far there's been none.

PopePalpatine

Jaysus, I'm almost worried I'll start growing a neckbeard if I take GCU seriously.

Ave Sodalis

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Jaysus, I'm almost worried I'll start growing a neckbeard if I take GCU seriously.

I've just been ignoring him. It doesn't matter what you reply to him, he's gonna find fault in it and make stuff up... or ignore your main point.

efb

I'm ignoring the WUM's here and on twitter- I've been canvassing in Dublin and Offaly and it's far more positive than here. It's not won, but we can win it

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

I've asked for just one valid reason to vote no. Just one reason to show how a yes vote will damage society in any way or damage marriage in any way. So far there's been none.

My concern as a parent is that in school Gay Marriage will have to be promoted evenly in sex education class etc. The discussions about marriage will not promote the idea of the natural family as the ideal everything being equal as the best way to go, I think were meddling in something we really shouldn't, that's only one knock on effect that will effect our kids outlook on society. It's probably only 30/40 years down the road were going to see that as a good or bad thing.

I haven't decided what way to vote but I have big concerns about family, natural parents rights and gender especially reading some the things that have happened in Sweden, Canada and the States.
I haven't seen any good arguments for the No side either which is concerning it can't all be positive for the majority in society.

aloyisious

It seem's to me that GCU Flexible Demeanour believes that Marriage is only to be availed of by heterosexual couples, as they are the only couples who can procreate, and (IHO) the combination of Marriage and Procreation are required to create the Family in the home mentioned in the 1937 constitution. H+M+P=F. The idea that two people of the same sex should be allowed get married is (in GCU's opinion) a no-no because they can never procreate as a singular unit, the way a heterosexual couple could.

The fact is that the constitution does not explicitly state what a family is comprised of. The section covering it (41) is made up of disjointed sections, more A+B+C+D= happiness for all. It is not a fully co-joined section. Break it down into it's specific sections and give it a legal forensic going-over to see what it say's in actual continuity. One sub-section mentions the woman, the next sub-section mentions the mother. By the use of the word mother, we are supposed to see the husband and the child, even though they are NOT even written into the script. Allying those three words together and you think you see a family, the family mentioned in section 41. The section also mentions the home, a thing much desired by people and linked in their minds as necessary for a family, and link's the woman to the home as a necessary item to ensure the stability of the family and the nation.

It was a creation of and for it's time, when the nation was not stable, and like most parts of any constitution, not unchangable by and for the people. Sorry if this is a bit late and the conversation has moved on. I've been typing and editing it for about an hour now.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

My concern as a parent is that in school Gay Marriage will have to be promoted evenly in sex education class etc. The discussions about marriage will not promote the idea of the natural family as the ideal everything being equal as the best way to go, I think were meddling in something we really shouldn't, that's only one knock on effect that will effect our kids outlook on society. It's probably only 30/40 years down the road were going to see that as a good or bad thing.

I haven't decided what way to vote but I have big concerns about family, natural parents rights and gender especially reading some the things that have happened in Sweden, Canada and the States.
I haven't seen any good arguments for the No side either which is concerning it can't all be positive for the majority in society.

But sex education shouldn't revolve around marriage. And of course it should cover homosexuality.

Apart from that, how could a yes vote affect natural parents rights? Genuinely... It's been said over and over that it can't.

PopePalpatine

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I haven't decided what way to vote but I have big concerns about family, natural parents rights and gender especially reading some the things that have happened in Sweden, Canada and the States.
I haven't seen any good arguments for the No side either which is concerning it can't all be positive for the majority in society.

What do you mean by that?

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

But sex education shouldn't revolve around marriage. And of course it should cover homosexuality.

Are we going to end up in a situation when marriage comes up in school that we say that's it's just as good for 2 guys to marry and create there own kid using their own genes than it is for a opposite sex couple to marry and create a child naturally, or do we say forget about marriage and just go steady and cross your fingers.
I'm not convinced excluding LBGT couples from marriage is negative discrimination, it's discrimination but not something to be offended by. It's not saying society hates you which seem to be the message coming across, you either give this to us or you hate us. That's simply not true.

There is one negative effect that's happened right now and that's the conservatives have been outcast buy the Yes side. There now the ones name calling when people hold a different view. The quest for equality is causing huge discrimination to what appears to be minority but could actually be the majority.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Are we going to end up in a situation when marriage comes up in school that we say that's it's just as good for 2 guys to marry and create there own kid using their own genes than it is for a opposite sex couple to marry and create a child naturally, or do we say forget about marriage and just go steady and cross your fingers.

Why are you confusing sex education and parenthood with marriage?

drunkmonkey

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What do you mean by that?

Sweden especially there seems to be a push for the last 40 years to end gender. They've even created a word for it, Hen. Look at spidey http://tinyurl.com/kmf9zwq
I'm not saying that's a result of ssm it's a result of feminism but when we start to change roles in society the sky's the limit

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

Why are you confusing sex education and parenthood with marriage?

Are they not related?

cursai

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wouldn't really, because it would still be 'discrimination by another name' so to speak. We have never referred to marriage as 'opposite sex marriage', no more than if this referendum were to pass would we refer to 'same sex marriage' and 'opposite sex marriage' as two different types of civil marriage.

The term would simply be 'civil marriage' and access to the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State as the union of two people without distinction as to their sex.

To achieve that we simply remove one discriminatory criteria via a constitutional amendment, as opposed to having to draw up further legislation that would have no constitutional protection.

The aim of the referendum is to determine whether or not people who are LGBT should have the same access to the institution of civil marriage as people who identify as heterosexual. That's really the idea and the context of marriage equality - equal opportunity and access to the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State.

I see what your saying. Maybe i don't but why not create a new equal legal union 'not called marriage' and appease both sides. I think a lot of the YES vote hold the 'marriage' term as a religious 'holy matrimony' meaning even if its hidden. 'I think of marriage as a contract or promise but not the be all and end all'. Although i think it would be wrong to give them exclusive rights over the term Marriage. Could all sides not be appeased by not altering the civil partnership Act? or altering the significance of marriage in the constitution.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Are they not related?

They can overlap, but they're not always related.

drunkmonkey

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Excluding gay people from marriage isn't negative discrimination, but disagreeing with conservatives is? Care to expand on that?

I'm saying that to create the equality your discriminating against an unquantified part of society which is larger than the minority seeking equality.

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

They can overlap, but they're not always related.

In school shouldn't we promote that it can be related in a positive way. I can't remember what I was though, all I can remember is some prayers and a copy of boys talk which if I can remember didn't mention LBGT but said it was ok to have sexual feelings for your dog. Not sure how it was worded but it stuck.

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

My concern as a parent is that in school Gay Marriage will have to be promoted evenly in sex education class etc. The discussions about marriage will not promote the idea of the natural family as the ideal everything being equal as the best way to go, I think were meddling in something we really shouldn't, that's only one knock on effect that will effect our kids outlook on society. It's probably only 30/40 years down the road were going to see that as a good or bad thing.

I haven't decided what way to vote but I have big concerns about family, natural parents rights and gender especially reading some the things that have happened in Sweden, Canada and the States.
I haven't seen any good arguments for the No side either which is concerning it can't all be positive for the majority in society.

Just took a quick skim there DM through the latest 'guidelines on relationships and sexual education' released by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland for teaching in Catholic ethos schools. You can download it for yourself here -

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2014/04/08/guidelines-relationships-sexuality-education/

But basically - nothing in there about promoting same sex marriage evenly or anything like it. It really doesn't articulate anything beyond marriage between a man and a woman.

It acknowledges that the parents are the primary educators of their children (well, it has to really because this is stated in the constitution already!), and that any deviation from the Catholic idea of marriage - the teacher should effectively shut down the discussion (doesn't say that in so many words, dresses it up a bit nicer). It also says that parental approval must be sought before children are allowed participate in sex education.


Any outside agencies brought in to give talks, their material must be forwarded in advance for approval by the Principal and the Board of Management.

There are a few other things in there, but given that 92% of schools in Ireland are Catholic ethos schools, I'd say you need have no worries about same sex marriage being promoted evenly in most schools in Ireland.

That's not even taking account of the fact that sex education in Irish schools at both primary and secondary level is sub-standard anyway, regardless of the ethos of the school.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In school shouldn't we promote that the can be related in a positive way.

Well marriage should be portrayed as being something that couples of any sex can aspire to if they should feel that way inclined. Sex education shouldn't discuss marriage and should definitely include homosexuality. Teachings of parenting should revolve around showing love and affection and support to your child/children.

drunkmonkey

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just took a quick skim there DM through the latest 'guidelines on relationships and sexual education' released by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland for teaching in Catholic ethos schools. You can download it for yourself here -

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2014/04/08/guidelines-relationships-sexuality-education/

But basically - nothing in there about promoting same sex marriage evenly or anything like it. It really doesn't articulate anything beyond marriage between a man and a woman.

Yea but now that your no longer saying marriage is just between a woman and a man, will somebody not get the hump and call it discrimination. I'm sure 2 gay parents wouldn't be happy with current status quo.